CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
D. Research Instrument
In this research, the researcher used oral test to find out the students‟
speaking ability. This oral test was in term of argumentative dialogue. The researcher gave a speaking test to the students by giving some instructions. The researcher asked the students to work in group consists of 5 students. And then, the researcher was given the issue/topic to discuss by the students. After that, they have to made some arguments about the topic consisted of agree and disagree arguments with a limited time. Every student was given two minutes to speak about their argument based on the topic. Then, in the end, the researcher recorded their argument by using gadget.
This study was conducted during six meetings in the classroom.
In the intention to increase the reliability of the test, the researcher used the oral English assessment in term of accuracy that consisted of pronunciation and vocabulary. The assessment as follow:
Table 3.3 Assessment of Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 96-100
Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother-tongue. Two or three minor grammatical and lexical errors.
Very good 86-95
Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother- tongue. A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct.
Good 76-85
Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by the mother-tongue but no serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only one or two major errors causing confusion.
Average 66-75
Pronunciation is influenced by the mother-tongue but only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusion.
Poor 56-65
Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother- tongue with errors causing a breakdown in communication. Many „basic‟ grammatical and lexical errors.
Very poor 36-55
Serious pronunciation errors as well as many „basic‟
grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course.
(Heaton, 1988:100)
Table 3.4Assessment of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 96 – 100
They speak effectively and excellent of using vocabulary.
Very Good 86 – 95
They speak effectively and very good of using vocabulary.
Good 76 – 85
They speak effectively and good of using vocabulary.
Average 66 – 75
They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good of using vocabulary.
Poor 56 – 65
They speak sometimes hasty fair of using vocabulary.
Very Poor 36 – 55
They speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary.
(Layman, 1972: 219)
E. Procedure of Collecting Data
In collecting the data, the researcher used:
1. Pre-test
Pre-test was given to the students before the treatment (teaching through Talking Chips Strategy). In the beginning of this research, the researcher gave the pre-test to the students to find out students‟ speaking ability before being taught through Talking Chips Strategy.
2. Treatment
After gave pre-test to the students, the researcher gave treatment. The researcher taught speaking through Talking Chips strategy to make all the students has the opportunities to speak. By applying this strategy, the teacher encouraged the students to speak and also motivated them.
3. Posttest
The researcher administered posttest after the treatments. It aimed to see the difference of students‟ speaking ability after they were taught by using Talking Chips Strategy in speaking class. The form of the test is argumentative dialogue. While researcher was teaching speaking through this strategy, the researcher also recorded the students‟ conversation. This recording result was as the data.
F. Technique of Data Analysis
The steps were undertaken in quantitative employing the following formula:
1. Calculation the mean of the students answer by using formula:
X X
NWhere:
X = Mean score
X = The sum of all scoreN = The total number of students
(Gay, 2011) 2. The percentage of increasing achievement used the following formula:
P = % Where:
P= Percentage
X2= Average score of Post-test X1= Average score of Pre-test
(Gay, 2011)
3. After collecting the data of the students, researcher classified the score of the students into the following criteria:
Table 3.5 Students Score Classifications
Score Classifications
96 – 100 Excellent
86 – 95 Very Good
76 – 85 Good
66-75 Average
56 – 65 Poor
X<51 Very poor
(Depdiknas 2015: 214),
4. The significance difference between the students‟ pre- test and post- test, the researcher applied the formula as follow:
2
2t D
D D
N N (N 1)
Where:
t = Test of significance
D = The difference score between pre-test and post-test = The mean of the difference score
∑D = The sum of D score
(∑D)2 = The square of the sum of ∑D N = The number of students
(Gay, 2011)
G. Hypotheses
To find out whether there was significant differences achievement in teaching speaking before and after gave treatment in the class, the researcher was proposed two hypotheses to be tested:
1. Ho: There was no a significant differences of the students‟ speaking ability before gave the treatment through Talking Chips Strategy.
2. H1: There was a significant differences of the students‟ speaking ability after gave the treatment through Talking Chips Strategy.
The criterion for accepting the hypotheses testing is as follows:
Table 3.6 Hypotheses Testing
Comparison Hypotheses
H0 H1
t-test < t-table Accepted Rejected t-test > t-table Rejected Accepted
The table above meant (1) the t-test value was smaller than t-table value, the null hypothesis was accepted, while the alternative hypothesis was rejected, and (2) the t-test value was equal to greater than t-table value, the null hypothesis was rejected while the alternative was accepted.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Findings
The findings of this research based on the result of data analysis, the researcher found that the use of Talking Chips in teaching speaking class at the XI IPS 2 students of MA Muhammadiyah Cambajawaya developed their speaking ability. The researcher analyzed the data that obtained from the students pre-test and post-test score and the result has proved that the strategy was effective to develop students‟speaking ability. It meant that this strategy was successful.
The findings dealt with the students‟mean score, pre-test and post-test improvement, and also the significant difference between the students‟ score of the pre-test and post-test. It could be seen from the result of data analysis is follow:
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability a. Pronunciation
The use of Talking Chips Strategy developed the students‟speaking ability in term of pronunciation. The improvement of the students‟ score in pronunciation can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.1The Improvement of Students’ Score In Pronunciation
Pre Test Post Test Improvement (%)
56.4 78
Pre-test – Post-test 38.29%
The table 4.1 shows that the improvement of the students‟ score in pronunciation by use Talking Chips Strategy was successful. The students‟
mean score in pre-test was 56.4(poor) and the students‟ mean score in post - test was 78 (good). So, the improvement of the students‟ pronunciation between pre-test to post-test was 38.29%. It was clearly shown in the chart below:
Chart 4.1 The Improvement of Students’ Score in Pronunciation
The chart 4.1 shows that students‟ post-test score was 78. It was higher than students‟ score in pre-test was 56.4 after conducted the treatments. The improvement of the students‟ pronunciation in pre test to post test was (38.29%). The classification score was poor to good. It proved that the use of Talking Chips Strategywas effective to improved students‟ pronunciation.
56.4
78
0 20 40 60 80 100
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good Excelent
pre-test post-test Pronunciation
b. Vocabulary
The use of Talking Chips Strategy developed the students‟speaking ability in terms of vocabulary. The improvement of the students‟ score in vocabulary can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.2 The Improvement of the Students’ Score in Vocabulary
Pre Test Post Test Improvement (%)
58.44 79.88
Pre-test – Post-test 36.68%
The table 4.2 shows that the improvement of the students‟ score in vocabulary by use Talking Chips Strategy was successful. The students‟ mean score in pre-test was 58.44(poor) and the students‟ mean score in post-test was 79.88 (good). So, the improvement of the students‟ pronunciation between pre-test to post-test was 36.68%. It was clearly shown in the chart below:
Chart 4.2 The Improvement of Students’ Score in Vocabulary
58.44
79.88
0 20 40 60 80 100
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good Excelent
pre-test post-test Vocabulary
The chart 4.2 shows that students‟ post-test score was 79.88. It was higher than students‟ score in pre-test was 58.44 after conducted the treatments. The improvement of the students‟ vocabulary in pre-test to post test was (36.68%). The classification score was poor to good .It proved that the use of Talking Chips Strategy was effective to improved students‟
pronunciation.
c. Students’ Speaking Ability
The use of Talking Chips Strategy developed the students‟speaking ability in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary. The improvement of the students‟ speaking ability can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.3The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability
T h T h T
the table 4.3 shows that the improvement of the students‟ score in speaking ability was successful. The students‟ mean score in pre-test was 57.42(poor) and the students‟ mean score in post-test was 78.94 (good). So, the improvement of the students‟ pronunciation between pre-test to post-test was 37.47%. It was clearly shown in the chart below:
No Indicator
Mean score Students‟ Improvement (%)
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-test to Post-test 1 Pronunciati
on 56.4 78 38.29%
2 Vocabulary 58.44 79.88 36.68%
∑X 114.84 157.88 74.97%
X 57.42 78.94 37.47%
Chart 4.3 The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Ability
The chart 4.3 shows that students‟ post-test score was 78.94. It was higher than students‟ score in pre-test was 57.42 after conductedthe treatments. The improvement of the students‟ speaking ability in pre-test to post test was (37.47%). The classification score was poor to good .It proved that the use of Talking Chips Strategy was effective to improved students‟
speaking ability.
2. The Classification of the Percentage Students’ Speaking Ability a. Pronunciation
The following table and chart showed the classification of the percentage students‟ speaking ability in term of pronunciation before and after using Talking Chips Strategy.
57.42
78.94
0 20 40 60 80 100
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good Excelent
pre-test post-test Students' Speaking Ability
Table 4.4 The Classification of the Percentage Students’ Pronunciation
No Classificati
on Score
Pronunciation
Pre-test Post-test
Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 96 – 100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86 - 95 - - 5 20%
3 Good 76 - 85 - - 12 48%
4 Average 66 – 75 4 16% 6 24%
5 Poor 56 – 65 11 44% 2 8%
6 Very Poor 36– 35 10 40% - -
Total 25 100% 25 100%
The table 4.4 shows it the classification of the students‟ pronunciation score from the pre-test and post-test. In the pre-test, 4 students got average score (16%), 11 students got poor score (44%), and 10 students got very poor score (40%), and nobody students got excellent, very good and good score.
While, in the post-test there were 5 students got very good score (20%), 12 students got good score (48%), and just 2 students got poor score (8%). And then, no students got very poor score.
The data was also shown in the chart below:
Chart 4.4: The Percentage of Students’ Pronunciation
0 20 40 60
Pre-test Post-test
20 48
16
24 44
8 40
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor very Poor
b. Vocabulary
The following table and chart showed the classification of the percentage students‟ speaking ability in term of pronunciation before and after using Talking Chips Strategy.
Table 4.5 The Classification of the Percentage Students’ Vocabulary
The table 4.5 shows it the classification of the students‟ pronunciation score from the pre-test and post-test. In the pre-test 5 students got average score (20%), 8 students got poor score (32%), and 12 students got very poor score (48%), and nobody students got excellent, very good and good score.
While, in the post-test there were 8 students got very good score (32%), 12 students got good score (48%), and just 5 students got poor score (20%). And then, no students got very poor score.
No Classificati
on Score
Vocabulary
Pre-test Post-test
Freq % freq %
1 Excellent 96 – 100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86 - 95 - - 8 32%
3 Good 76 - 85 - - 12 48%
4 Average 66 – 75 5 20% 5 20%
5 Poor 56 – 65 8 32% - -
6 Very Poor 36– 35 12 48% - -
Total 25 100% 25 100%
The data was also shown in the chart below:
Chart 4.5 The Percentage of Students’ Vocabulary c. Students’ Speaking Ability
The following table and chart showed the classification of the percentage students‟ speaking ability before and after using Talking Chips Strategy.
Table 4. The Classification of the Percentage Students’ Speaking Ability
No. Classificati
on Score
Speaking Ability Pre-test Post-test
Freq % freq %
1 Excellent 96 – 100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86 - 95 - - 6 24%
3 Good 76 - 85 - - 8 32%
4 Average 66 – 75 6 24% 11 44%
5 Poor 56 – 65 7 28% - -
6 Very Poor 36– 35 12 48% - -
Total 25 100% 25 100%
0 20 40 60
Pre-test Post-test
32 48
20 20
32 48
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor very Poor
The table 4.6 shows it the classification of the students‟ pronunciation score from the pre-test and post-test. In the pre-test, 6 students got average score (24%), 7 students got poor score (28%), and 12 students got very poor score (48%), and nobody students got excellent, very good and good score.
While, in the post-test there were 6 students got very good score (24%), 8 students got good score (32%), and 11 students got poor score (44%). And then, no students got poor and very poor score in speaking ability.
The data was also shown in the chart below:
Chart 4.6 The Percentage of Students’ Speaking Ability 3. Hypotheses Testing
The hypothesis was tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (test of significance) for independent sample test. It was a test to know the significant difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest. If the result of t-test was higher than t-table, values thealternative Hypothesis (H1)was accepted. While, if the result of t-test was lower than the t-table
0 20 40 60
Pre-test Post-test
24 32 24
44 28
48
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor very Poor
value, the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted.The researcher used t-test analysis on the level of significance (p) = 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1, where N = number of subject (25 students) then the value of t-table is 2.06390. The t-test statistical, analysis for independent sample was applied.
The result of the data analysis t-test of the students‟ speaking ability in Table 4.7 below:
Table 4.7 The Comparison of T-test and T-table Score of the Students’ Speaking Ability
No Components t-test value t-table value Description
1 Pronunciation 19.28 2.06 Significant
2 Vocabulary 15.31 2.06 Significant
X 21.55 2.06 Significant
Table 4.7 shows that the value of the t- test was higher than the value of t- table. The t-test value of pronunciation was greater than t-table (19.28>2.06) and t- test value of vocabulary was greater than t-table (15.31> 2.06). The result of calculating t-test of the indicators t-test students‟ speaking ability was greater than t- table (21.55> 2.06).
The value of the t-test was greater than t-table. The score in variable of students‟ speaking ability was (21> 2.06). It was said that the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. It meant that there was
a significance difference between, the results of the students‟ speaking ability in teaching speaking by using Talking Chips Strategy after treatment.
B. DISCUSSION
The description the analysis of the data from speaking test as explaines in the previous section shows that the students‟ speaking ability in term of accuracy (pronunciation and vocabulary). It examines the result of treatment teaching and learning process toward the effectiveness of Talking Chips strategy to develop students‟ speaking ability at the eleventh grade student of MA Muhammadiyah Cambajawaya which was conducted with pre-test, treatment and post-test during 8 meetings.
The students‟ mean score after presenting in teaching speaking using Talking Chips strategywas better than before the treatment was given to the students.
Before giving treatment, the students‟ speaking ability in accuracywas 57.42 categorized as poor. After giving the treatment, their ability was significantly develop 78.94 categorized asgood. Thus, the improvement of students‟ achievement from mean score of pre-test to post-test was 37.47%.
1. Students’ Speaking Ability in Term of Pronunciation
The description of data collected through speaking test as explained in the previous section show that the students‟ speaking ability in term of pronunciation and sequence of detail was developed. It was supported by the frequency and the rate percentage of the result of the students‟ pre-test and
post-test. Students score after presenting material using Talking Chips Strategy in teaching speaking was better than before treatment was given to the students.
The students‟ mean score of each indicators of accuracy including pronunciation and sequence of detail, it shows from the mean score (56.4) poor. But after application of Talking Chips, the students‟ score in the post-test became (78) good. Thus, the improvement of students‟ achievement from mean score of pre-test to post-test was 38.29%. The result of t-test value (19.28) was higher than t-table (2.06866).
From the explanation above, the researcher analyzed that by use Talking Chips Strategy could develop students‟ speaking ability in term of pronunciation. This strategy made the students enjoyable in learning process.
2. Students’ Speaking Ability in Term of Vocabulary
The description of data collected through speaking test as explained in the previous section show that the students‟ speaking ability in term of vocabulary was developed. It was supported by the frequency and the rate percentage of the result of the students‟ pre-test and post-test. Students score after presenting material use Talking Chips Strategy in teaching reading was better than before the treatment was given to the students.
The students‟ vocabulary was supported by the mean score of students in pre-test and post-test. In pre-test was 58.44 (poor)and post-test was
79.88 (good), the improvement of students‟ achievement from mean score of pre-test to post-test was 36.68%. The result of t-test value (15.31) was higher than t-table (2.06866). Therefore, it can be concluded that Talking Chips Strategy could develop the students‟ speaking ability in term of vocabulary.
Based on the finding above applying Talking Chips Strategy in the class, the data was collected through the test as explains in the previous finding section shows that the students‟ vocabulary is significantly developed. The students easily communicate with their friends in the class.
Based on the previous chapter above, this research has line with Purwasih, Vianty and Sitinjak (2016). The research findings showed that there was a significant difference in speaking achievement the students who were taught by using Talking Chips Technique and those who were not. Talking Chips technique was effective to improved students‟speaking achievement.
Another research was Syaripudin and Nuristiana (2014) defines that Talking Chips Technique effective in teaching speaking, especially in improved to students‟ speaking ability. Talking Chips gives many benefits to foster students‟ speaking ability. Besides that, Purwaningsih, Rais and Sarosa (2012) defines that there was an improve students‟ speaking ability after being taught through Talking Chips. Talking Chips Technique as one of the appropriate technique to improved students‟ speaking ability.
After comparing the previews research findings, it can be concluded that the use of Talking Chips Strategy could develop the students‟ speaking ability. The effectiveness of talking chips activities to develop students‟
speaking ability in educational settings and professional areas. Talking chips encourages the students to be more confident to speak with others, and it made the students tended to interact and communicate to other students.
3. The Significant Difference of T-test and T-table
Through the result of pre-test and post-test, the result of t-test value of the level of the significant = 0.05, degree of the freedom (df) = 25 indicated that t-table value is 2.06866 and t-test value is 21.55. Therefore, it can be concluded that statistically hypothesis of (HI) is accepted and the statistically hypothesis of (HO) is rejected. It means that the use Talking Chips in teaching speaking could develop the students‟ speaking ability in term of accuracy (pronunciation and vocabulary).
By knowing the effectiveness of Talking Chips Strategy in speaking ability, the researcher found that the eleventh gradestudents of MA Muhammadiyah Cambajawaya have good response in learning process by use of Talking Chips Strategy in speaking English classroom.Talking Chips strategy provided students‟ opportunity to talk and give a challenge to the students.So,The researcher concluded that the use of Talking Chips Strategy an